Swaziland labor protests

By Chris Lowe <Chris.Lowe@directory.Reed.EDU> 2 July, 1995

This is summary and commentary on an InterPress Service news report out of
Harare, dateline Mbabane June 28, by Jowie Mwiinga, titled "Swaziland-Politics:
Tiny Southern African Monarchy in Turmoil".

The story reports that the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) is
threatening mass protest action, possibly as early as July 9, unless the
government ceases efforts to deport a key Federation leader, Jan Sithole. The
report characterizes the threatened deportation as an effort to weaken the
labor movement, at a time when the SFTU has taken a leading role in pressing
for constitutional reform for multi-party democracy as well as legal changes
regarding worker rights and labor conditions.

The immediate background to the threat against Sithole is a nationwide strike
which the SFTU staged in March. The strike was a political one "to push for
far-reaching industrial and political reforms," according to the report, which
also says that the action "culminated in the country's worst ever riots."

Apparently the government is trying to deport Sithole on the allegation that
"he is of Mozambican origin". Sithole denies this, and the SFTU position is
that the government is harassing him for political reasons. The story quotes
Sithole (whom the it calls "fiery") as saying '' I have concluded that this is
not about citizenship but a way to test our solidarity. Well, the time has
come. It is now or never."

The broader context is that Swaziland's no-party state, in which King Mswati
III holds all formal legislative and executive power, is under increasing
challenge from within Swazi society. The report states that "several
political parties have been formed", and says that the People's United
Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) and the Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO) are the
"most vocal" of these. It quotes a PUDEMO spokesman, Nhlahla Mncina, as
saying "Our democratic organisations are in a relentless struggle for the total
emancipation of the entire Swazi Nation. Multiparty democracy and peace are
our points of paramount importance. We are going to fight until the final
victory for the attainment of all our civil liberties from this government."

The threatened renewal of SFTU action comes at a time when the student unions
in the country have gone on strike over the past few weeks. According to the
report, their demands include "the right of male students to wear hairstyles of
their choice and an end to corporal punishment."

The government apparently has responded with harsh rhetoric blaming outside
forces with alien ideas for stirring up trouble. So the students are portrayed
as being used by "hostile forces, including the opposition, to destabilize the
government."

The report quotes Patrick Tsabedze, a member of Parliament, as saying "I would
like to warn these political parties not to bother coming to cause trouble here
because we will deal with them physically. If they do, then they should first
buy their coffins and prepare for a bloody confrontation."

In addition to its internal opponents, the government also blames foreigners
for the student strikes, since they import "alien" ideas about democracy and
human rights.

In particular, the report says "A Parents-Teachers Association meeting in
Lobamba ... resolved last weekend that U.S. officials were directly responsible
for the students' behaviour." Apparently in May the U.S. Department of State
issued a report condemning the Swazi government for human rights abuses, which
included detaining opponents without trial, and discrimination against women
legally and culturally. The report drew applause from the opposition and
outraged condemnation for interfering in Swaziland's internal affairs from the
government and its supporters.

The IPS story also places the political crisis in a context of economic decline
of several years duration, and government failure to meet IMF aid conditions.
It reports a government deficit of 282 Emalangeni or about $95 million U.S.,
out of a total budget of $203 million U.S., with 45% of the budget going for
salaries when the IMF has prescribed a 40% level.

Commentary

The IPS reporter does not inspire total confidence since he
claims Swaziland is completely surrounded by South Africa, when in fact the
country borders Mozambique to the East for nearly its entire north-south
length, and he refers to "King Sobhuza the third" when the former king was
Sobhuza II (the current king or Ngwenyama is Mswati III). Nonetheless the
report rings true broadly.

PUDEMO was not exactly "formed" recently, but rather came out as an open
political party, after having been an underground movement in the 1980s. At
the time PUDEMO spoke of "unbanning itself" in language modelled on that of the
African National Congress of South Africa and its internal allies, with whom
PUDEMO has had close ties.

Government attacks on the citizenship standing of opponents has a long history
in Swaziland. They were used even in the late colonial period against
MacDonald Maseko, a union organizer and opposition party leader who led
large-scale strikes in the sugar and timber industries in 1963, which the
British government suppressed using the Gordon Highlanders. Many members of
the Maseko clan live in both Swaziland and the eastern Transvaal. Likewise
King Sobhuza II abolished the independence multi-party constitution and
established the no-party state in 1973 following a constitutional crisis, in
which his government attempted to prevent the seating in Parliament of a
victorious opposition party member on the grounds that his parents were not
Swazi. The courts initially rejected the attempt, which led to the crisis and
the king's coup from above.

A common theme in the use of citizenship claims and the accusations against
outside agitators with alien ideas is the attempt to define all opposition as
"unSwazi", and thus manipulate national sentiment through chauvinism.

In 1978 King Sobhuza re-established a parliament as a purely advisory body,
partly appointed and partly indirectly elected, from which a Prime Minister and
Cabinet are drawn, who run a bureaucracy descended from the British colonial
administration. A separate hierarchy of local chiefs and princes, and a
hierarchy of "tinkhundla" (royal offices headed by _tindvuna_ which cover 3 - 5
chiefdoms and which mediate between the "traditional" and "modern" arms of the
state), relate to the king and his inner circle of advisers independently of
Parliament (although many chiefs serve in Parliament).

The IPS report does not describe the March "riots" nor the respective actions
of unionists, police or military forces, or other possible participants, such
as student activists. Nor does it define what it means by "worst ever". In
1990, in response to a student strike at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA),
police and army forces sealed off the campus and invaded it, beating hundreds
of students ferociously, many of them in the University Library where they had
taken refuge. At the time there were reports that 4 students were killed in
the assault; I am not sure if those reports were ever confirmed.

The current student strikes appear to involve secondary school students rather
than University students, based on allusions in the IPS report. In the late
1980s Swaziland schools had a reputation at UNISWA for being authoritarian and
rote- oriented. The main national newspaper reported community accusations
that male teachers were sexually exploiting female students with some
regularity.

Swaziland has seen increased union militance since the mid-1980s. Strikes and
protest actions have involved workers in industries including timber, railways,
sugar, along with service sector employees in banking, teachers and civil
servants.

In the late 1980s, the white-collar workers were among the most militant, and
several times union leaders were detained without trial. The social
composition of the Swaziland opposition resembles that of the forces which
engaged in rebellions in various South African bantustans toward the end of the
apartheid period.

The prominence of service sector unions in labor and political protests also
reflects the fact that pressure for constitutional reform is particularly
strong in urban areas. As PUDEMO's name suggests, multi-partyist opposition is
a cross-class populist phenomenon, which includes many in managerial and
professional jobs, along with students who aspire to them. However, it
probably would be a mistake to make too much of the rural- urban divide.
Although urbanites are probably about 20-25% of the population, studies of
Swazi rural homesteads in the 1980s found that about 80% of homesteads had one
or more members in town. Many people circulate frequently between rural and
urban residences owned by themselves, kin, or friends. In rural areas,
royalist chiefs and royal _tindvuna_ (officials) exercise tight political
control, by controlling land access and other patronage resources.

C.L.]

Two responses to the part of Jabulane Matsebula's article which Peter Limb
posted.

One is that I think the politicization of the Swaziland unions' activity
involves both the state as employer, as Mr. Matsebula says, and also its role
in setting the terms of labor struggles and negotiations. Examples include
the shape and jurisdiction of industrial courts; defining required, permitted
or forbidden bargaining mechanisms; required, permitted or forbidden labor
practices, dispute tactics etc. (The Swaziland unions have been much
influenced by SA union struggles over such matters, is my impression.) The
latter often fit under "anti- popular measures", no doubt, but the distinction
might still be a useful one.

If as Matsebula says the trade unions have a political responsibility "as
members of the community", they also need to be able press members of other
progressive sectors and organizations to take up their reciprocal
responsibilities and pay attention to workers' interests as workers. Swaziland
still faces its versions of the workerist/ populist debates, perhaps, and I
wonder if post-1993 developments in SA don't throw a little more weight on the
workerist side of the scale? Anyway, Peter, if Jabulane M. is going to revise
this, tell him at least one reader would be interested to learn his thinking
about that question more explictly.

Another question which I would like to know the answer to is, how much have the
Swaziland unions changed in their attitude toward the monarchy? Back in 1988
and 1989 a number of them had a very interesting tactic of marching to the King
when employers would stall in the industrial courts, or when the government
would try to define certain issues out of bounds. Some observers took this to
be pretty much a sign of influence of a hegemonic traditionalism which was an
obstacle to the unions achieving their aims. To me it always seemed more
complex.

Defensively, it helped insulate the unions from the "unSwazi" charge.
Conceivably the need to do that could reflect a rank and file in thrall to
hegemonic traditionalism, and in any case it could be argued to contribute to
legitimating royal authority, but still I thought critics ought to pay more
attention to the unions' defensive needs.

Beyond that, I thought it put the King in a very interesting and awkward
position which had some possibilities. The basic political contradiction of
the royalty is that it represents itself as the disinterested arbiter of all
interests in the Nation, acting for the good of the Nation as a whole, when in
fact it is quite partial. The tactic of marching to him made a claim like
this: "The government is partial and is siding with the bosses unfairly. You
say you are fair to all. Thus you must not agree with the government." The
King faces a choice. He either has to repudiate his own government to some
degree, or reveal that it is his government, and that its partiality is his
partiality. At this point, the possibility that the tactic might actually
erode traditionalist hegemony emerges.

So my concrete question is, how much has such erosion occurred? If it has,
does it take the form of general anti-royalism, of the idea that this king is
bad but kingship is still good, or of the idea that the king is good but
misled?